Why is it that the ballot for some
judges running for certain jurisdictions contain only one
name? What is the purpose of voting if there is no
At other times you may see
three judges running for office. I have yet to see one that
I am familiar with. As a citizen I cannot get background
information on any judge running for office. Where do they
come from? Who puts them on the ballot? Who decides their
term? How in the world can anyone vote for someone they
know nothing about?
If you have any information on
this I would love to hear
While I responded back to this
writer personally, I deemed it appropriate that I modify my
answer somewhat and make it public seeing as this question lies
within the mind of most, if not every voter in this country,
namely, "How in the world can anyone vote for someone they know
nothing about?" The fact is, they can't if intelligence has
anything to do with voting! Otherwise, we may as well let mental
patients punch holes in the ballot, or touch the screen in
deciding judges for us.
Now for some shocking
revelations. The shadow government has
the voting process regarding judges to be illusory,
foggy, and nebulous, leaving voters in the dark. Why, not
even the Republican Party leaders can answer the
above questions as they,
too, are in the
same quandary, and have asked me the very
same type of questions.
Generally, there is never an
outside challenger to a sitting judge. The reason for this is
that only those who hold a title
of nobility (incidentally, forbidden
by the U.S. Constitution) of esquire,
an English title usually referring to lawyers, may run
for judgeship. It is in
this manner the judicial fraternity holds a tight rein on their
exclusive monopoly. This method is designed to close out
non-lawyers with good legal minds who are principled from
running for judicial office.
Further, even should one be
"qualified" to run for judgeship, they do not do so. Should
one dare to run, woe be unto him if he does not win
in the election, for then he must appear as a lawyer in
front of the very person whose
seat he challenged. Basically, that lawyer must win
or consider it the end of his career.
As a practical matter, that is the way the system works (or
shall I say, does not work.)
Almost without exception, when
a judge decides to
retire at the end of his term,
he takes an "early retirement" just months
before his term expires so
that the governor may appoint a
temporary replacement judge. This
is standard operational procedure (SOP) in judicial politics.
It's a game of "keep away from the voters." Don't let the
people vote on judges, or in lieu thereof, like growing
mushrooms, as the saying goes, "feed'em sh_t, and keep'em in the
dark." We know federal judges are appointed for life, but as a
practical matter, so are state judges.
The objective of planned "early
retirements" of judges, is to get the judge's replacement to be listed
on the up-coming ballot
as the "incumbent,"
which translates into the
incumbent always wins the judicial
election because "he is
experienced." One will be hard put to ever find an incumbent
judge who lost the election and had to surrender his seat to a
There is a very purposeful and
intentional plan being carried out when it comes to voting
for judges. This is because those
who manipulate and control the system know that if you
can control the judiciary,
you have control over
all the rest of government,
notwithstanding which Party or person is in office.
By all means, they must not allow the voters to control the
judiciary. To do so, would be for the power-brokers to lose
control of the country.
Now why is it that the
electorate is kept in the dark when it comes to judicial
candidates? Knowledge is power, and the objective is to keep the
electorate ignorant when it comes to whom
to vote for regarding judges.
The voting process in this country regarding judges must be
handled just like any communist country--list
them on the ballot as the sitting
judge, and allow the voters to just punch the name, even
if it be the only name,
on the ballot. It's called "a choice of one."
With this method, the electorate is "assured" that sitting
judges have the public's "vote of confidence," and thus they
are "elected" for another twelve years, after which the same
process is repeated. The net result is that the public never
gets new judges unless the system appoints them.
We all know that one cannot see
the vermin under a rock unless the rock is removed. After the
rock is removed, only then can we see what is under it. "...men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh
to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that
doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made
manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:19-20. So we now
know why judicial elections take place in the dark.
I have advised even those in
the Republican Party, and those who
have asked me similar
questions, to just vote "No confidence" in respect to
judges on the ballot. This means you will be better off to not
vote blindly and
ignorantly for an unknown. The
"unknown" about the judge is the plan. Remember, in the
event of a recall effort,
only a percentage of the votes is
required. If the judge
received only one thousand votes to get him elected, it
may take just less than
a hundred signatures to start a recall.